if you freeze coin that does not move to a new signature scheme it will result in a chain split
calling it a soft fork seems disingenuous
Discussion
The likelihood of chain split decreases commensurate to the percentage of hashrate enforcing the soft fork.
hey nostr:npub150q6tnk63wrt0jmy6ht27k8u0pa6gq8jjy4eq7tf6f6507t9ghgqnnen2h
we were right
if no hash keeps building on the chain that doesn't see the quantum signatures,
wheres the split?
"calling it as soft fork seems disengenuous"
You can do better than this
"Hard fork" and "soft fork" are well-defined technical terms. Either can cause a chain split
This was explained thousands of times to the RDTS/Knotsi crowd in recent months, on Twitter and in their Telegram group chat. But they were told by Liar nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcltxu3w that "hard" and "soft" mean "split" and "no split"
If you want to talk about controversy, and consensus, and chain splits, please do
You're the liar. I said nothing of the sort. And no, softforks _don't_ cause chain splits.
SegWit (2017) β soft fork β no chain split
Taproot (2021) β soft fork β no chain split
temporary divergence leads to orphaned blocks but not a split
this time though, we're proposing a fork that makes those who don't update and those who do update *disagree on the chain state*
this was carefully avoided previously.
this time it would be intentional and cause a split.
not clear what Luke's point is π€
nostr:nprofile1qqsftzm4fgwnmed4ajs0uvwj642lg5fjt7zf32pa5xvhkl7dtsu73rqpzemhxue69uhks6tnwshxummnw3ezumrpdejz7qg6waehxw309aek2mnyd96zumn0wdnxcctjv5hxxmmd9uq3vamnwvaz7tmwdaehgun9d35hgetn9ehhyee0t94wjk, A soft fork with minority hashrate will chain split
I'll be precise:
Let's imagine 40% activate nostr:nprofile1qqsw3p5pela795rxxff34kgfafsaawhnkqp8ehmgm2my49dgx9fjclcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujuurjd9kkzmpwdejhgtcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgtcpzamhxue69uhhyetvv9ujucm0wfc82mfwvdhk6tcuxu0h5's soft fork in 2026. The remaining 60% just keep doing nothing, i.e. they keep running their existing Core and Knots nodes, like Core 0.21 or Core 30 or Knots 29. Let's call the 60% the "Taproot" hashrate
Also, observe that many current blocks are incompatible with the RDTS rules, for example having OP_RETURNs greater than 83 bytes
The 60% running taproot will get a block roughly every 17 minutes, while the RDTS will find a block roughly every 25 minutes
The first hour or so could be interesting, and maybe Taproot miners will find a couple of blocks that satisfy the RDTS rules. But that won't last long, the Taproot chain will soon include blocks that are rejected by the RDTS hashrate
The chain will split, where the majority hash rate will ignore the RDTS chain because it doesn't have enough Proof of Work, and the RDTS will ignore the Taproot chain because it has RDTS-incompatible blocks
So basically, nostr:nprofile1qqs0m40g76hqmwqhhc9hrk3qfxxpsp5k3k9xgk24nsjf7v305u6xffcppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp00qjrgs was wrong at least three times in this one paragraph X post:
No, you're wrong. You're acting as if miners have a choice. They don't. They must make blocks that the network accepts, or they're not miners anymore. If they make invalid blocks, *they* are splitting the chain - not the softfork.
Furthermore, their invalid blocks don't constitute a real chain: every time the valid chain gets ahead, all the old nodes will drop the invalid blocks and those miners will start over, with huge losses. The only way they can avoid this, is with a counter-fork.
"A miner's job is to produce blocks the market wants to buy"
From Gemini
Dathon Ohm's soft fork will, if they are crazy enough to activate, cause a chain split
The only way they can avoid a split is if they get more than 50% of hashrate
But - in my opinion - they won't get 51% of hashrate and therefore we'll have a textbook example of a chain split caused by a softfork. It will be a good opportunity for you to learn how bitcoin works
There is no debate on this, and therefore I will not waste time with you on this thread again. This is Nostr, not X or Telegram, and I expect higher standards
You are a disgrace, lying to the plebs like this
You're the one lying
> "Hard fork" and "soft fork" are well-defined technical terms
if freezing bitcoin is a soft fork then itβs a meaningless distinction π€·ββοΈ
Yes, it's a technical distinction, not an ethical one.
I didn't say anything about being for or against freezing coins
Contention around this broader quantum topic may cause chain splits, depending on various factors.
Contentious forks, hard or soft, can cause chain splits depending on the distribution of hash rate and other factors
Soft fork is soft fork. The fact that you have some emotion associated with it doesn't change that.